hey guys. i just did another test roll with black and white film (fuju neopan acros 100) and my nikon fm2n - and got them back from the lab today. i got them scanned at the lab this time.
previously, i had some complaints with my prints looking extremely grainy and .. just not right (posted here http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/slr-compacts/1007088-kinda-grainy-black-white-prints.html )
this time the grain is very fine, i think, and for most part it looks good.. i managed to even get a few images that i liike, even though i was just like testing it out. but the white areas on some photos look completely white, i.e. with no detail at all.. im not sure if this is a feature of b/w film photography or whether there's again something with the processing.. or this time, maybe scanning? coz i remember when i was reading up about film scanners, they talk about the level of detail that can be scanned. ive seen some b/w photos where the sky is kinda white, like mine, but some where it has this nice shade of grey. according to the data, the lab used a fuji sp3000 scanner. and i asked for high res, the scans are about 3-4mb each. well, here are a few samples of wat im talkign about::
the sky in this one.. looks pretty overexposed, yet the landscape itself looks almost dark
and in this too.. the sky looks overexposed but the church looks almost under exposed. maybe these were both shot at a bad time/angle of sun?
the lower right area of the sidewalk in this pic -
the following look almost fine to me, so i dont think its a problem with my camera's meter overexposing etc:
this one has a bit of the 'pure white' look in the background wall-
but this one seems just fine - i'd post more but i can only post 5, and i think there's enough to show wat i mean!
i just tested out my light meter compared to my dslr. in about 5 different scenes, my fm2n gave the same result as my 500D. and i used the fm2n's meter level and used 500D in manual mode, and the pics looked perfect. so im pretty sure the metering is fine. just to get that out of the way
i guess wat im really asking is that, does that sort of image look normal for b/w film? am i expecting results that look too much like digital b/w? or does it seem like the scanning couldve been better?
the worst of them are the first two, where the sky is pure white, with no detail, and the picture end up a bit weird. they were pretty sunny days, maybe its the photographers fault for picking a wrong time and a wrong angle. haha. thanks for ur time!
previously, i had some complaints with my prints looking extremely grainy and .. just not right (posted here http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/slr-compacts/1007088-kinda-grainy-black-white-prints.html )
this time the grain is very fine, i think, and for most part it looks good.. i managed to even get a few images that i liike, even though i was just like testing it out. but the white areas on some photos look completely white, i.e. with no detail at all.. im not sure if this is a feature of b/w film photography or whether there's again something with the processing.. or this time, maybe scanning? coz i remember when i was reading up about film scanners, they talk about the level of detail that can be scanned. ive seen some b/w photos where the sky is kinda white, like mine, but some where it has this nice shade of grey. according to the data, the lab used a fuji sp3000 scanner. and i asked for high res, the scans are about 3-4mb each. well, here are a few samples of wat im talkign about::
the sky in this one.. looks pretty overexposed, yet the landscape itself looks almost dark
and in this too.. the sky looks overexposed but the church looks almost under exposed. maybe these were both shot at a bad time/angle of sun?
the lower right area of the sidewalk in this pic -
the following look almost fine to me, so i dont think its a problem with my camera's meter overexposing etc:
this one has a bit of the 'pure white' look in the background wall-
but this one seems just fine - i'd post more but i can only post 5, and i think there's enough to show wat i mean!
i just tested out my light meter compared to my dslr. in about 5 different scenes, my fm2n gave the same result as my 500D. and i used the fm2n's meter level and used 500D in manual mode, and the pics looked perfect. so im pretty sure the metering is fine. just to get that out of the way
i guess wat im really asking is that, does that sort of image look normal for b/w film? am i expecting results that look too much like digital b/w? or does it seem like the scanning couldve been better?
the worst of them are the first two, where the sky is pure white, with no detail, and the picture end up a bit weird. they were pretty sunny days, maybe its the photographers fault for picking a wrong time and a wrong angle. haha. thanks for ur time!
Last edited:
i guess i could always just photoshop the scans a bit
